
Vaccine Coding Instructions
===========================

This document describes how to categorize stories in our vaccines study as PRO-vaccine, ANTI-vaccine, PRIMARY science, or NONE.

When judging the sentiment of potentially PRO- or ANTI-vaccine stories, you should consider first the content of the story itself and then the links within the story.  A story consisting only of links to PRO- or ANTI-vaccine pages should be coded as PRO- or ANTI-vaccine.  If the content of the page itself is sufficient to assign a PRO-or ANTI-vaccine score, you need not follow the story's links.

If the relevancy to vaccines is not clear in a given story, the coder should search search 'vaccin' in her browser to find all vaccination references.


NA
--

A story should be categorized as NA (not applicable) if any of the following are true:

* the url for the story returns an error;
* the story mentions vaccines only in the comments or boilerplate;
* the story does not mention vaccines even once.



PRIMARY
-------

A story should be marked as PRIMARY science if any of the following are true:

* the story is the full text or abstract of a paper or article published in a peer reviewed academic journal.


PRO
---

A story should be categorized as having PRO-vaccine sentiment if any of the following are true:

* the author presents a pro-vaccine argument in her own voice;
* the story describes only pro-vaccine arguments or scientific research;
* the story mentions vaccines in a way that presumes vaccines in general are a public good;
* the story describes efforts by the government or other institutions to vaccinate without critiquing the
  effectiveness of the vaccines;
* the story presents pro-vaccine arguments as coming from the scientific establishment but presents anti-vaccine
  arguments as coming only from anti-vaccine advocates who are not scientists or doctors;
* the story presents a critical accounting of only anti-vaccine advocates or their tactics without any counter-
  balancing anti-vaccine arguments.

Some examples of PRO-vaccine stories:

* Large New Study Confirms That Childhood Vaccines Are Perfectly Safe
  http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/07/01/3455131/childhood-vaccine-study-safe/
  [ pro-vaccine argument ]

* Has human progress stalled? And if so, what can we do about it?
  http://www.aei.org/publication/progress-stalled-can/
  [ presumes vaccine as public good ]

* US approves first bird flu vaccine for people
  http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11626-us-approves-first-bird-flu-vaccine-for-people.html
  [ describes government vaccination ]

* "The way God intended" - California parents are having "measles parties" instead of vaccinating their kids
  http://www.salon.com/2015/02/10/the_way_god_intended_california_parents_are_having_measles_parties_instead_of_vaccinating_their_kids/
  [ critical of anti-vaccine advocates ]


ANTI
----

A story should be categorized as having ANTI-vaccine sentiment if any of the following are true:

* the author presents an anti-vaccine argument in her own voice;
* the story describes only anti-vaccine arguments or scientific research;
* the story presents scientific research in support of anti-vaccine arguments;
* the story presents a combination of scientific research, facts, and questions that would lead most readers toward
  vaccine hesitancy;
* the article present critical accounting of only pro-vaccine advocates or their tactics.

Some examples of ANTI-vaccine stories:

* EMAILS FROM CDC AND FDA ON VACCINES AND MERCURY - AGE OF AUTISM
  http://www.ageofautism.com/2007/12/emails-from-cdc.html
  [ anti-vaccine argument ]

* WHO scandal exposed: Advisors received kickbacks from H1N1 vaccine manufacturers
  http://www.naturalnews.com/028936_WHO_vaccines.html
  [ critical of pro-vaccine advocates ]


NONE
----

A story should be categorized as belonging to NONE of the other coding categories if any of the following are true:

* none of the above primary science, pro-vaccine, or anti-vaccine conditions are true;
* it is unclear what the author is arguing or advocating for;
* the story assumes vaccine as public good but describes a specific vaccine as having more adverse effects than
  benefits;
* the story is associated with an author or organization known for pro- or anti-vaccine sentiment but the story does
  not meet any of the pro- or anti-conditions are true.

Some examples of stories that are NONE of primary science, pro-vaccine, or anti-vaccine:

* Immunology and Cell Biology - Vaccine adjuvants: Current state and future trends
  http://www.nature.com/icb/journal/v82/n5/full/icb200475a.html
  [ primary science ]

* In Fever Dreams Begin Irresponsibilities, Texas Edition - The New Yorker
  http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/in-fever-dreams-begin-irresponsibilities-texas-edition
  [ none of the above ]
